I am pleased to see that Peter has confirmed that the signature copy of the agreement from 2004 had a number of errors. I suspect what he doesn't know is how different it is from the final agreed draft (which I kept). These "changes" alone make it invalid (as it is not a true and accurate reflection of what was agreed by the two parties). If one then adds in the fact that Castle Technology Ltd did not actually have the rights to enter into such an agreement, then one adds the fact that information supplied by Castle Technology Ltd was at best deeply flawed and at worst a complete fabrication then it can clearly be seen that the the 2004 agreement had no validity in law. Which is why it was abandoned by both parties.
As a small note I should point out that I studied contract law as part of my degree.
I do have one final comment...whilst I have a large pile of evidence for Castle Directors misleading the RISC OS community it hadn't occured to me until today that they might also have been misleading each other...
Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.
Search the archives
Today's featured article
RISC OS 6 in pictures Drobe writer Paul Stewart presents an illustrated round-up of his favourite features new to the RISC OS 6 desktop. 20 comments, latest by sa110 on 23/7/09 10:29PM. Published: 18 Apr 2009